BEAUMONT, Thomas (c.1608-76), of Stoughton Grange, Leics.

The Beaumonts of Stoughton were a junior branch of a family that had settled at Coleorton, Leicestershire, by the early fifteenth century and could trace its descent to the Norman-French nobility.21Vis. Leics. 1619, 169-71; Nichols, Leics. ii. 857-8; iii. 734; E.T. Beaumont, The Beaumonts in History (Oxford, 1929), 122. Both Beaumont’s great-grandfather and his grandfather – who had acquired Stoughton Grange, four miles from Leicester, by marriage – had represented the county in Parliament on three occasions between 1563 and 1604.22HP Commons 1558-1603, ‘Nicholas Beaumont’; HP Commons 1604-29, ‘Sir Thomas Beaumont I’; Nichols, Leics. ii. 854, 858; VCH Leics. v. 327-8. Through his maternal grandfather, he was a kinsman of the parliamentarian grandee William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele. He was also a cousin of Charles I’s civil-war Bedchamber man, John Ashburnham*.23Nichols, Leics. ii. 854, 858, 859, 860. Although Beaumont’s father was described by one authority as a royalist who compounded for his estate, there is no evidence to this effect in the papers of the committee at Goldsmiths’ Hall.24Ibid., 860. Members of the senior branch of the family were certainly royalist, and their manor of Coleorton was garrisoned for the king during the war.25Nichols, Leics. iii. 737, 738; CCC 2047. Beaumont himself aligned with Parliament – for reasons which are now unclear.26CJ ii. 903b.

Beaumont’s first notable appearance on the political stage was in November 1644, when the London press, referring to him as ‘brave gentleman’, reported the ‘exquisite speech’ he made at the presentation of the petition from the ‘best-affected’ of Leicestershire to the Commons. Supporters of Thomas Lord Grey of Groby* in his power-struggle with the Leicestershire and war-party grandee Sir Arthur Hesilrige*, the petitioners complained that the county committee could not command the people’s support until it contained more of the ‘best men of the county...gentlemen of known integrity and interest’, rather than the men of mean estate and reputation who had (allegedly) dominated its proceedings hitherto.27Infra, ‘Thomas Lord Grey of Groby’; ‘Sir Arthur Hesilrige’; CJ iii. 688b; Harl. 166, f. 153; A Diary, or an Exact Journall no. 27 (7-14 Nov. 1644), 185-7 (E.17.2); The London Post (1644), 8 (E.16.28). A vote by the Lords in March 1645 to add more of Grey’s allies, including Beaumont, to the committee was not consented to by the Commons.28CJ iv. 82a; LJ vii. 276a; D. R. Costa, ‘Sir Arthur Hesilrige and the Development of the Civil War in England (to 1645)’ (Oxford Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1988), 294-5. He was listed that year with Thomas Pochin* and William Quarles* among a group of Leicestershire parliamentarians – most of them Grey of Groby’s adherents – ‘of known integrity and abilities, who suffered both in their persons and estates for their affections to the public’.29Infra, ‘Thomas Lord Grey of Groby’; ‘Thomas Pochin’; ‘William Quarles’; An Examination of a Printed Pamphlet (1645), 5 (E.261.3); Nichols, Leics. iii. app. iv. 51. However, the county committeemen who backed Hesilrige included Beaumont among those who ‘appeared not’ in Parliament’s service and were such as they had (unspecified) ‘exceptions against’.30Infra, ‘Sir Arthur Hesilrige’; An Examination Examined (1645), 14-15 (E.303.13). Hesilrige and Grey resumed their rivalry during the Leicestershire ‘recruiter’ election that autumn, with Grey recommending Beaumont to the voters and Heslirige canvassing for the successful candidate, Henry Smyth.31Supra, ‘Leicestershire’; Bodl. Rawl. D.116, pp. 18-19.

Grey of Groby took the lead in raising troops and mobilising Leicestershire during the second civil war, and his most active collaborators in this endeavour were Beaumont and Thomas Waite* and two of Hesilrige’s local allies, Peter Temple* and Francis Hacker*.32Infra, ‘Thomas Lord Grey of Groby’; HMC Portland, i. 455, 468, 475; Desiderata Curiosa ed. Peck, ii. lib. ix, pp. 45-6. The county’s lord lieutenant (and Grey of Groby’s father), Henry Grey*, 1st earl of Stamford, nominated Beaumont as one of his deputy lieutenants in July, but the Commons failed to ratify the appointment.33LJ x. 356b. There may be some substance to a report in August – which would be repeated and embellished after the Restoration – that Beaumont had been sent down to London with a petition from Leicestershire ‘for no treaty, no king’.34Infra, ‘Thomas Lord Grey of Groby’; Mercurius Elencticus, no 38 (9-16 Aug. 1648), 292 [recte 309] (E.459.8); SP29/39/116i-iii, ff. 248, 250; SP29/59/56, f. 120. He certainly remained active in county politics after the regicide – notably, in working with Temple in October 1649 in prosecuting and imprisoning the Leveller and Baptist preacher Samuel Oates.35SP28/161, pt. 3, unfol.; Bodl. Rawl. D.116, pp. 139-41; CJ vi. 272b; Leicester Bor. Recs. iv. 385-6. In March 1650, Beaumont was appointed a militia colonel for Leicestershire, and was thanked by the council of state for his diligence in examining royalists.36CSP Dom. 1650, pp. 19, 505. In December, he and John Pratt* were among those entrusted by the council with ensuring that all arms and images of the late king were removed from public places in Leicester.37Leicester Bor. Recs. iv. 394-5.

Beaumont was one of seven candidates who stood for Leicestershire in the elections to the first protectoral Parliament in the summer of 1654. One observer discerned two parties among the candidates, aligning Beaumont with the earl of Stamford, his son Grey of Groby and Thomas Pochin*, whose family estate lay only five miles north of Stoughton. Beaumont was the ‘first chosen with the advantage of one thousand votes’, but Francis Hacker attempted to challenge his election by demanding a poll – only to quit the field when the sheriff pressed him on the matter, ‘seeing again the numbers much too great for him’.38Supra, ‘Leicestershire’; The Faithful Scout no. 192 (11-18 Aug. 1654), 1519 (E.233.5). On 21 August, Hacker’s supporters petitioned the council, alleging not only that Beaumont and Stamford had been unduly elected, but also that they were disqualified according to the Instrument of Government for having ‘assisted the late king’s party’ and being ‘not of a good conversation’. No evidence was produced to support any of these allegations.39SP18/74/100, ff. 214-15, 217; CSP Dom. 1654, p. 316. Unlike Stamford and Grey of Groby, Beaumont was included on the list of Members approved by the council early in September.40Severall Procs. of State Affaires no. 258 (31 Aug.-7 Sept. 1654), 4093 (E.233.22).

Beaumont presumably subscribed the Recognition, acknowledging the validity of the protectoral settlement, and received his first committee appointment on 15 September 1654, to examine the proceedings of the judges at Salters Hall.41CJ vii. 368a. Ten days later (25 Sept.) he was appointed to that for the bill to enforce Members to subscribe the Recognition.42CJ vii. 370a. And on 31 October he was named second to a committee for considering the petition of Sir William Killigrew† and other adventurers concerned with the drainage of the Lindsey level.43CJ vii. 380a. In November he assured the corporation of Leicester that he would attend to its concerns at Westminster in the absence of the borough’s two Members, who had refused the Recognition.44Leics. RO, BRII/18/27, ff. 761, 777. On 29 November he was a minority teller on what seems to have been a non-partisan division concerning whether to alter the proportions in the next three months’ assessment.45CJ vii. 392b. His last appointment in this Parliament was to a committee set up on 4 December for reforming the office of county sheriff.46CJ vii. 394b.

Beaumont was returned for Leicestershire again in the elections to the second protectoral Parliament in the summer of 1656. Admitted by the protectoral council to take his seat, he was among the 29 MPs who voted against a motion on 22 September that the excluded Members apply to the council for ‘approbation’ to sit – which was interpreted as support for ‘the bringing in of the excluded Members into the House’, and was comprehensively defeated.47Bodl. Tanner 52, f. 166; CJ vii. 426b. Most of these 29 MPs have been accounted Presbyterians.48M.J. Tibbetts, ‘Parliamentary Parties under Oliver Cromwell’ (Bryn Mawr Univ. PhD thesis, 1944), 127-9. Among the 35 committees to which he was named in this Parliament were those on a bill for the security of the lord protector (26 Sept.); to consider ‘the matter of trade’ (20 Oct.); to settle Irish lands on Henry Whalley* (5 Dec.); and to reform the government of Wyggeston’s Hospital in Leicester (9 Dec.), of which he was made a governor and trustee the following year.49CJ vii. 429a, 442a, 463b, 466a; Nichols, Leics. i. 488-9. When the House was called on 31 December, Edward Whalley excused the absence of Beaumont and his Leicestershire colleague Thomas Pochin on the grounds that ‘they have attended hitherto’.50Burton’s Diary, i. 285.

Beaumont had returned to the Commons by 27 January 1657, and four days later (31 Jan.) he was added to a committee for securing the protector’s assent to a declaration of thanksgiving for the discovery of Sindercombe’s plot.51CJ vii. 482b, 484b. On 6 February he joined Pochin, William Quarles*, and William Stanley* in a letter to Leicester’s municipal leaders, urging them, ‘for the Gospel’s sake’, to support the efforts of the town’s godly minister, William Barton, to reconcile Presbyterians and Independents, and to ‘agree in some way of discipline’ that would ensure ‘all such who are neither ignorant nor scandalous may be admitted to [receive the] sacrament, though differing in their judgements’.52Leicester Bor. Recs. iv. 437-8; Oxford DNB, ‘William Barton’. Leicester corporation looked primarily to Beaumont and Stanley to obtain an Act introducing an assessment for maintenance of the town’s ministry.53Leics. RO, BRII/18/28, f. 322. On 9 February, Beaumont was a minority teller against committing a petition of Sir Cornelius Vermuyden, requesting permission to drain his newly-acquired land in Sedgemoor on the Somerset levels.54CJ vii. 488b. And a week later (16 Feb.) he was a majority teller with Thomas Whitgreave in favour of passing a bill for settling Scottish lands on George Monck*.55CJ vii. 492a. Granted leave of absence on 5 March, he had returned to the House by 5 May, when he was a majority teller with Thomas Pride in favour of giving a reading to a bill against vagrancy.56CJ vii. 498b, 530b. That he supported the Humble Petition and Advice is suggested by his appointment to a committee set up on 23 May to request Cromwell when the House should attend him with the new protectoral constitution; and to a committee of 23 June ‘for the solemnization and publication of his Highness’s acceptance of the present government [and to]...offer to the House what they think fit touching the settling of his Highness’s council, and such other matters as they shall think necessary in pursuance of the Humble Petition and Advice’.57CJ vii. 538b, 570b. Unlike his fellow Leicestershire MP Francis Hacker, however, he was not listed among the ‘kinglings’ – the supporters at Westminster of a monarchical settlement.58A Narrative of the Late Parliament (1658), 22 (E.935.5). Beaumont played no recorded part in the second session.

Although Beaumont had not been particularly supportive of the protectorate in Parliament, in March 1658 he was created a baronet, probably in recognition of his standing in Leicestershire.59Clarke Pprs. iii. 142; CB. That autumn, he presented the county’s loyal address to Richard Cromwell* on his succession as protector, requesting that he ‘endeavour the just freedom and liberty of these nations … according to the Humble Petition and Advice’.60Bodl. Rawl. A.61, f. 164; A True Catalogue (1659), 42 (E.999.12). Early in 1659, the protectoral council thanked Beaumont for his ‘care in seizing and sending up ... seditious books’, which it regarded as ‘a testimony of your good affection to his Highness and the peace of the commonwealth’.61PRO31/17/33, p. 438. Beaumont was chosen to represent Leicestershire for a third time in the elections to the third protectoral Parliament of 1659, almost certainly taking the senior place before Hacker. The most revealing of his four appointments in this Parliament were those to committees for establishing a godly ministry in Wales (5 Feb.); and to consider how the Commons should transact proceedings with the Cromwellian Other House (6 Apr.).62CJ vii. 600b, 627a. On 2 February he was a minority teller in favour of removing Lewis Audley* from the Surrey commission of the peace; and on 12 February he was a majority teller against sending the alleged delinquent Robert Danvers alias Villiers* to the Tower.63CJ vii. 597b, 603a. Beaumont’s only recorded speech in this Parliament was on 11 April, when, in response to a suggestion that Henry Lord Craven should be given protection when he came to England, Beaumont said that ‘His petition only desires leave to come. Why then should you give him more than he asks?’64Burton’s Diary, iv. 393.

Re-appointed to the Leicestershire militia commission and magistracy soon after the re-admission of the secluded Members in February 1660, Beaumont – along with his son, friends and tenants – was later reported to have been ‘very instrumental’ in the king’s restoration, although in what capacity was not made clear.65SP29/39/116iii, f. 250; CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 49. In February 1661, he was granted a baronetcy – apparently in recognition of the protection he had afforded royalists ‘during the late troubles’ – but in July he petitioned the king, complaining that his patent had been detained as a result of ‘some untrue suggestions’ put about by his enemies.66CB; SP29/39/116i-v, ff. 247-53; CSP Dom. 1660-1, p. 514; 1661-2, p. 49. These allegations included not only claims that he had petitioned Cromwell for the trial of Charles I, but also that he had agitated for the banishment of John Ashburnham* and other leading royalists and had been a close friend of the prominent Surrey parliamentarian, John Goodwyn*.67SP29/59/56, f. 120; CSP Dom. 1661-2, pp. 487-8. In response, over 70 of Beaumont’s friends among the Leicestershire gentry and clergy, including Pochin and William Quarles*, certified that he had never pursued ‘violent courses’ against the king or his supporters, ‘being no sequestrator, decimator, ejector, or disturber of any ministers in their just and legal titles’.68SP29/39/116iii-v, ff. 250-3. Sir Geoffrey Palmer*, the attorney general, also interceded on his behalf.69SP29/30, f. 61. Although Beaumont’s baronetcy was confirmed, it took him until 1667 to regain his place on the county bench (having been omitted shortly after the Restoration), and he was removed again in 1670, this time permanently.70C231/7, pp. 311, 374.

Beaumont died on 11 August 1676 and was buried at Stoughton.71Nichols, Leics. ii. 860. His eldest son and grandson represented Leicester under the later Stuarts and the Hanoverians.72HP Commons 1660-90, ‘Sir Henry Beaumont’; HP Commons 1690-1715, ‘Sir George Beaumont’.